Individual differences in the emotional modulation of gaze-cuing

Gaze-cuing refers to the spontaneous orienting of attention towards a gazed-at location, characterised by shorter response times to gazed-at than non-gazed at targets. Previous research suggests that processing of these gaze cues interacts with the processing of facial expression cues to enhance gaze-cuing. However, whether only negative emotions (which signal potential threat or uncertainty) can enhance gaze-cuing is still debated, and whether this emotional modulation varies as a function of individual differences still remains largely unclear. Combining data from seven experiments, we investigated the emotional modulation of gaze-cuing in the general population as a function of participant sex, and self-reported subclinical trait anxiety, depression, and autistic traits. We found that (i) emotional enhancement of gaze-cuing can occur for both positive and negative expressions, (ii) the higher the score on the Attention to Detail subscale of the Autism Spectrum Quotient, the smaller the emotional enhancement of gaze-cuing, especially for happy expressions, and (iii) emotional modulation of gaze-cuing does not vary as a function of participant anxiety, depression or sex, although women display an overall larger gaze-cuing effect than men.     

Predictive gaze cues and personality judgments: Should eye trust you?

Although following another person's gaze is essential in fluent social interactions, the reflexive nature of this gaze-cuing effect means that gaze can be used to deceive. In a gaze-cuing procedure, participants were presented with several faces that looked to the left or right. Some faces always looked to the target (predictive-valid), some never looked to the target (predictive-invalid), and others looked toward and away from the target in equal proportions (nonpredictive). The standard gaze-cuing effects appeared to be unaffected by these contingencies. Nevertheless, participants tended to choose the predictive-valid faces as appearing more trustworthy than the predictive-invalid faces. This effect was negatively related to scores on a scale assessing autistic-like traits. Further, we present tentative evidence that the "deceptive" faces were encoded more strongly in memory than the "cooperative" faces. These data demonstrate the important interactions among attention, gaze perception, facial identity recognition, and personality judgments.     

Mental-state attribution drives rapid, reflexive gaze following

When presented with a face stimulus whose gaze is diverted, observers’ attention shifts to locations fixated by the face. Such “gaze following” has been characterized by some previous studies as a consequence of sophisticated theory of mind processes, but by others (particularly those employing the “gaze-cuing” paradigm) as an involuntary response that is triggered directly and reflexively by the physical features of a face. To address this apparent contradiction, we modified the gaze-cuing paradigm using a deception procedure to convince observers that prerecorded videos of an experimenter making head turns and wearing mirrored goggles were a “live” video link to an adjacent room. In two experiments, reflexive gaze following was found when observers believed that the model was wearing transparent goggles and could see, but it was significantly reduced when they believed that the experimenter wore opaque goggles and could not see. These results indicate that the attribution of the mental state “seeing” to a face plays a role in controlling even reflexive gaze following.     

Talking heads or talking eyes? Effects of head orientation and sudden onset gaze cues on attention capture

The direction of gaze towards or away from an observer has immediate effects on attentional processing in the observer. Previous research indicates that faces with direct gaze are processed more efficiently than faces with averted gaze. We recently reported additional processing advantages for faces that suddenly adopt direct gaze (abruptly shift from averted to direct gaze) relative to static direct gaze (always in direct gaze), sudden averted gaze (abruptly shift from direct to averted gaze), and static averted gaze (always in averted gaze). Because changes in gaze orientation in previous study co-occurred with changes in head orientation, it was not clear if the effect is contingent on face or eye processing, or whether it requires both the eyes and the face to provide consistent information. The present study delineates the impact of head orientation, sudden onset motion cues, and gaze cues. Participants completed a target-detection task in which head position remained in a static averted or direct orientation while sudden onset motion and eye gaze cues were manipulated within each trial. The results indicate a sudden direct gaze advantage that resulted from the additive role of motion and gaze cues. Interestingly, the orientation of the face towards or away from the observer did not influence the sudden direct gaze effect, suggesting that eye gaze cues, not face orientation cues, are critical for the sudden direct gaze effect.     

阈下情绪面孔的注视线索提示效应

采用线索-靶子范式，利用2个预实验和1个正式实验，考察阈下不同情绪面孔的注视线索提示效应。要求被试在具有表情与注视线索的面孔呈现完毕后，快速而准确地对目标的位置进行判断。记录被试反应时间。结果显示，当被试未有意识的觉察到注视线索与面孔表情时，注视线索提示效应存在，并受到表情的调节。表现为：在注视线索有效并伴有恐惧表情时，被试对于目标的判断更加迅速；当比较不同表情下线索无效与线索有效条件下的反应时差异时发现，恐惧表情面孔出现时，线索无效与线索有效条件之间反应时的差异最大。结果表明，阈下情绪刺激能够激发个体更原始的生物性反应；在早期注意阶段，个体对于恐惧信息更加敏感，注意存在负向情绪偏差。     

Inhibition of return in response to gaze cues: The roles of time course and fixation cue

Recent studies have demonstrated that orienting of attention in response to nonpredictive gaze cues arises rapidly and automatically, in a similar fashion to peripheral sudden onset cueing. However, while peripheral cues consistently elicit inhibition of return (IOR) at about 300 ms following cue onset, very little is known about inhibition effects in response to gaze cues. The present experiments systematically examined the conditions under which IOR arises with such cues. Reliable inhibition effects were obtained. Importantly, IOR emerged only at long cue-target intervals and only when a second cue actively triggered attention away from the cued location. This suggests that compared to sudden onset cueing, gaze cueing results in both prolonged facilitation and a delayed onset of inhibition processes. Thus, although both types of cues elicit very similar orienting effects in terms of their basic behavioural outcomes, there are more subtle differences between gaze and peripheral cues with respect to the maintenance and quality of those cueing effects across time.     

Do common ravens (<Emphasis Type="Italic">Corvus corax</Emphasis>) rely on human or conspecific gaze cues to detect hidden food?

The ability of non-human animals to use experimenter-given cues in object-choice tasks has recently gained interest. In such experiments, the location of hidden food is indicated by an experimenter, e.g. by gazing, pointing or touching. Whereas dogs apparently outperform all other species so far tested, apes and monkeys have problems in using such cues. Since only mammalian species have been tested, information is lacking about the evolutionary origin of these abilities. We here present the first data on object-choice tasks conducted with an avian species, the common raven. Ravens are highly competitive scavengers, possessing sophisticated cognitive skills in protecting their food caches and pilfering others’ caches. We conducted three experiments, exploring (i) which kind of cues ravens use for choosing a certain object, (ii) whether ravens use humans’ gaze for detecting hidden food and (iii) whether ravens would find hidden food in the presence of an informed conspecific who potentially provides gaze cues. Our results indicate that ravens reliably respond to humans’ touching of an object, but they hardly use point and gaze cues for their choices. Likewise, they do not perform above chance level in the presence of an informed conspecific. These findings mirror those obtained for primates and suggest that, although ravens may be aware of the gaze direction of humans and conspecifics, they apparently do not rely on this information to detect hidden food.     

Why does the gaze of others direct visual attention?

Viewing another person directing his or her gaze can produce automatic shifts of covert visual attention in the same direction. This holds true even when the task‐relevant target is much more likely to occur at the uncued location. These findings, along with other evidence, have been taken to suggest that gaze represents a “special” stimulus—the foundation of a social cognition system that can make inferences about the mental states of other people. However, gaze‐driven cueing effects could simply be due to spatial compatibility between cue and target. We compared the attentional effects of gaze shifts to a face with the tongue extended laterally to the left or right. When tongue direction was a nonpredictive cue, we found cueing effects from tongues that were indistinguishable from those produced by gaze. However, in contrast to previous findings with gaze, tongue cues did not overcome a validity manipulation in which targets were four times more likely to appear at the uncued location. We conclude that simple attentional cueing effects from gaze may be better explained by spatial compatibility, and that more complex, unique features of cueing from gaze may be better indices into perceptual systems specialized for social cognition.     

Gaze and arrow distractors influence saccade trajectories similarly

Perceiving someone's averted eye-gaze is thought to result in an automatic shift of attention and in the preparation of an oculomotor response in the direction of perceived gaze. Although gaze cues have been regarded as being special in this respect, recent studies have found evidence for automatic attention shifts with nonsocial stimuli, such as arrow cues. Here, we directly compared the effects of social and nonsocial cues on eye movement preparation by examining the modulation of saccade trajectories made in the presence of eye-gaze, arrows, or peripheral distractors. At a short stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA) between the distractor and the target, saccades deviated towards the direction of centrally presented arrow distractors, but away from the peripheral distractors. No significant trajectory deviations were found for gaze distractors. At the longer SOA, saccades deviated away from the direction of the distractor for all three distractor types, but deviations were smaller for the centrally presented gaze and arrow distractors. These effects were independent of whether line-drawings or photos of faces were used and could not be explained by differences in the spatial properties of the peripheral distractor. The results suggest that all three types of distractors (gaze, arrow, peripheral) can induce the automatic programming of an eye movement. Moreover, the findings suggest that gaze and arrow distractors affect oculomotor preparation similarly, whereas peripheral distractors, which are classically regarded as eliciting an automatic shift of attention and an oculomotor response, induce a stronger and faster acting influence on response preparation and the corresponding inhibition of that response.     

Effects of head orientation on gaze perception: How positive congruency effects can be reversed

Several past studies have considered how perceived head orientation may be combined with perceived gaze direction in judging where someone else is attending. In three experiments we tested the impact of different sources of information by examining the role of head orientation in gaze-direction judgements when presenting: (a) the whole face; (b) the face with the nose masked; (c) just the eye region, removing all other head-orientation cues apart from some visible part of the nose; or (d) just the eyes, with all parts of the nose masked and no head orientation cues present other than those within the eyes themselves. We also varied time pressure on gaze direction judgements. The results showed that gaze judgements were not solely driven by the eye region. Gaze perception can also be affected by parts of the head and face, but in a manner that depends on the time constraints for gaze direction judgements. While “positive” congruency effects were found with time pressure (i.e., faster left/right judgements of seen gaze when the seen head deviated towards the same side as that gaze), the opposite applied without time pressure.     

In the presence of conflicting gaze cues,fearful expression and eye-size guide attention

Humans are social beings that often interact in multi-individual environments. As such, we are frequently confronted with nonverbal social signals, including eye-gaze direction, from multiple individuals. Yet, the factors that allow for the prioritisation of certain gaze cues over others are poorly understood. Using a modified conflicting gaze paradigm, we tested the hypothesis that fearful gaze would be favoured amongst competing gaze cues. We further hypothesised that this effect is related to the increased sclera exposure, which is characteristic of fearful expressions. Across three experiments, we found that fearful, but not happy, gaze guides observers’ attention over competing non-emotional gaze. The guidance of attention by fearful gaze appears to be linked to increased sclera exposure. However, differences in sclera exposure do not prioritise competing gazes of other types. Thus, fearful gaze guides attention among competing cues and this effect is facilitated by increased sclera exposure – but increased sclera exposure per se does not guide attention. The prioritisation of fearful gaze over non-emotional gaze likely represents an adaptive means of selectively attending to survival-relevant spatial locations.     

On the uniqueness of attentional capture by uninformative gaze cues: facilitation interacts with the Simon effect and is rarely followed by IOR.

Orienting to an uninformative peripheral cue is characterized by a brief facilitation followed by a long-lasting inhibition once attention is removed from the cued location. Although central gaze cues cause reflexive orienting, the inhibitory effect that is relatively ubiquitous following exogenous orienting to uninformative peripheral cues has been relatively rare. We hypothesized that IOR might be seen following gaze-induced orienting if attention were effectively returned to centre by a return gaze or return flash. The timecourse of gaze-directed orienting was measured by varying the interval between the gaze cue and a peripheral target requiring an orientation discrimination (permitting measurement of the Simon effect). Significant facilitation was observed at all but the longest SOA tested, 2,880 ms, by which time the facilitation had disappeared with no evidence of IOR. Gaze-induced cuing (which was unaffected by return cue condition) interacted with the Simon effect, decreasing it at the gazed-at location, a pattern that is not seen with more typical endogenous and exogenous cuing.     

Effects of head orientation on gaze perception: how positive congruency effects can be reversed

Several past studies have considered how perceived head orientation may be combined with perceived gaze direction in judging where someone else is attending. In three experiments we tested the impact of different sources of information by examining the role of head orientation in gaze-direction judgements when presenting: (a) the whole face; (b) the face with the nose masked; (c) just the eye region, removing all other head-orientation cues apart from some visible part of the nose; or (d) just the eyes, with all parts of the nose masked and no head orientation cues present other than those within the eyes themselves. We also varied time pressure on gaze direction judgements. The results showed that gaze judgements were not solely driven by the eye region. Gaze perception can also be affected by parts of the head and face, but in a manner that depends on the time constraints for gaze direction judgements. While “positive” congruency effects were found with time pressure (i.e., faster left/right judgements of seen gaze when the seen head deviated towards the same side as that gaze), the opposite applied without time pressure.     

Gaze cues evoke both spatial and object-centered shifts of attention

When someone observes another individual suddenly shifting gaze, the observer's attention automatically and rapidly orients to the same location. Such gaze cuing of attention has properties similar to those of exogenous cuing. We investigated whether gaze cuing is also like exogenous cuing in that it is observed for both spatial and object-/head-centered frames of reference. That is, when the face that produces the gaze cue is presented on its side, tilted 90 degrees from upright, will attention be simultaneously directed to where the eyes would have been looking if the face had been presented upright and toward the actual spatial direction of gaze? It is demonstrated that gaze cues do indeed orient attention in both spatial and object-centered frames, that these effects are of similar magnitude, and that such orienting is relatively rapidly computed.     

Spatial cueing by social versus nonsocial directional signals

A cost-benefit analysis was used to investigate whether reflexive effects in a spatial cueing task are stronger when target location is cued by another person's gaze rather than arrows because the relative contribution of attentional shifts versus automatic priming is greater in the case of gaze cues. Across four experiments, nonpredictive arrows triggered rapid facilitatory, inhibition-less priming that peaked at 300-500ms SOA and then died away; across three experiments, nonpredictive gaze cues triggered facilitation-plus-costs at SOAs of 300-400ms or more, suggesting that gaze cues trigger stronger (and longer) attentional effects. At 200 ms SOA, gaze cues triggered facilitation-without-cost, consistent with the view that facilitatory effects accrue more rapidly due to earlier automatic priming, whereas costs are manifest slightly later, when attentional effects come online. There was some evidence that nonpredictive gaze cues trigger long-lasting congruency effects so long as observers maintain their preparedness to respond. Findings support the view that gaze is a unique symbolic directional cue.     

Perceptual mechanism underlying gaze guidance in chimpanzees and humans

Previous studies comparing eye movements between humans and their closest relatives, chimpanzees, have revealed similarities and differences between the species in terms of where individuals fixate their gaze during free viewing of a naturalistic scene, including social stimuli (e.g. body and face). However, those results were somewhat confounded by the fact that gaze behavior is influenced by low-level stimulus properties (e.g., color and form) and by high-level processes such as social sensitivity and knowledge about the scene. Given the known perceptual and cognitive similarities between chimpanzees and humans, it is expected that such low-level effects do not play a critical role in explaining the high-level similarities and differences between the species. However, there is no quantitative evidence to support this assumption. To estimate the effect of local stimulus saliency on such eye-movement patterns, this study used a well-established bottom-up saliency model. In addition, to elucidate the cues that the viewers use to guide their gaze, we presented scenes in which we had manipulated various stimulus properties. As expected, the saliency model did not fully predict the fixation patterns actually observed in chimpanzees and humans. In addition, both species used multiple cues to fixate socially significant areas such as the face. There was no evidence suggesting any differences between chimpanzees and humans in their responses to low-level saliency. Therefore, this study found a substantial amount of similarity in the perceptual mechanisms underlying gaze guidance in chimpanzees and humans and thereby offers a foundation for direct comparisons between them.     

面孔-人格知觉中眼部线索及其效应

人们常常会基于他人面孔特征对其人格做出相应推论。在影响面孔-人格知觉的五官特征中, 眼部特征最具复杂性。总体上, 眼部线索可分为可变和不可变两大类。可变线索包括注视方向、眼睑开放程度与眼部区域的表情等; 不可变线索包括眼睛大小、巩膜着色程度、虹膜颜色以及巩膜暴露指数等。从以上线索效应的潜在作用机制来看, 可以将眼部线索分为三大类, 即受病理因素影响的眼部线索、与特定群体相关的眼部线索和受主观意识或生理因素调控的眼部线索。此外, 也进一步指出了未来研究还需加以考虑的其他眼部特征效应, 以及待拓展深入的研究视角。     

Is chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) spatial attention reflexively triggered by gaze cue?

Humans show a reflexive shift in spatial attention triggered by gaze cues. Chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) have an excellent ability to follow another's gaze, but they exhibit a limited capacity to engage in triadic interactions based on joint attention, suggesting the possibility of contributions of the different mechanisms underlying joint attention between humans and chimpanzees. The present study thus examined how the chimpanzee's visual spatial attention is triggered by gaze cues. Two chimpanzees showed no clear signs of attention shift triggered by various kinds of nonfacial and facial stimuli with averted gaze under the letter-discrimination tasks but showed significant cueing effects when the head-turning cue was presented in a quasi-dynamic manner. These cueing effects were, however, affected by the predictability of the gaze cue: Highly predictive gaze cues caused stronger cueing effects than less predictive cues. Thus, these results suggest that the shift in spatial attention caused by gaze cues does occur in chimpanzees, but, in contrast to humans, vulnerability against the cue predictability suggests that the voluntary mechanism contributes more dominantly than the reflexive mechanism to this attention shift.     

Luminance-induced shift in the apparent direction of gaze

Changing the luminance of one side of the sclera induces an apparent shift of the perceived direction of gaze toward the darker side of the sclera. This luminance-induced gaze shift was measured in photographic and schematic images of eyes. The effect was substantial: a moderate darkening of one side of the sclera induced an apparent shift of 8 to 10 deg of gaze; the maximum darkening induced a shift of 15 deg of gaze or more. The effect of scleral darkening was also compared to the gaze shift induced by an actual shift of the iris. The effects of the two cues were measured independently and in combination. When pitted against each other, their effects could be nulled, demonstrating that they act on a common level. Predictions of the relative strengths of the luminance and iris shift cues were developed for two simple luminance-based mechanisms: flux ratio and luminance centroid. The data showed the luminance cue was less effective than the models predicted in determining gaze direction. As an alternative source for the gaze shift, irradiation effects on apparent size could create a perceived shift in the iris position but a direct measure of the irradiation shift showed that this was far too small. The results suggest that at least one important mechanism for gaze judgment is based on low-level analysis of the luminance configuration within the eye.     

Automatic Mechanisms for Social Attention Are Culturally Penetrable

Are mechanisms for social attention influenced by culture? Evidence that social attention is triggered automatically by bottom‐up gaze cues and is uninfluenced by top‐down verbal instructions may suggest it operates in the same way everywhere. Yet considerations from evolutionary and cultural psychology suggest that specific aspects of one's cultural background may have consequence for the way mechanisms for social attention develop and operate. In more interdependent cultures, the scope of social attention may be broader, focusing on more individuals and relations between those individuals. We administered a multi‐gaze cueing task requiring participants to fixate a foreground face flanked by background faces and measured shifts in attention using eye tracking. For European Americans, gaze cueing did not depend on the direction of background gaze cues, suggesting foreground gaze alone drives automatic attention shifting; for East Asians, cueing patterns differed depending on whether the foreground cue matched or mismatched background cues, suggesting foreground and background gaze information were integrated. These results demonstrate that cultural background influences the social attention system by shifting it into a narrow or broad mode of operation and, importantly, provides evidence challenging the assumption that mechanisms underlying automatic social attention are necessarily rigid and impenetrable to culture.